[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: The Arms Struggle in Chicago-NY TIMES OP-ED The city of Chicago, bedeviled by street gang violence, refuses to give in to ever more restrictive court rulings against enactment of sensible gun safety laws. The Supreme Court’s misguided 2010 decision ended the nearly 30-year-long ban on handguns in Chicago. In January, a federal judge ruled that the city’s ban on retail gun shops was unconstitutional. Instead of rolling over, Mayor Rahm Emanuel responded this week with some reasonable proposals designed to pass constitutional muster while upholding the city’s basic obligation to protect citizens. This time, zoning regulations would be used to limit gun shops to less than 1 percent of the city’s geographic area, with tight auditing of the shops, sales limited to one handgun per customer per month, a 72-hour waiting period to buy handguns and the simple videotaping of gun sales to deter buyers from using false identification. The proposals do not answer the full scope of Chicago’s gun problem since 60 percent of the weapons used in crimes in the city are traceable to legal outlets in surrounding states and suburbs with weak-to-nonexistent controls on gun sales. But they do attempt to stop buyers who shop in volume and funnel guns into the underworld. These sensible efforts underscore how difficult it is for local governments to protect the public from gun violence when obstructionist politicians in Washington blithely refuse to enact federal laws closing gaps and loopholes in state and federal laws that feed the nation’s gun mayhem. In contrast to Chicago’s attempt to ensure a modicum of law and order, Congress is barely reacting to the latest mass shooting spree in California, where a disturbed young man, legally armed with three high-powered weapons and knives, killed six people and himself. There is no call by the leadership to do something serious, only a little-noticed attempt in the House to put some teeth into a federal records rule that is supposed to help prevent people with mental illness and felony records from buying guns — a rule that most states have treated lightly since its passage after the Virginia Tech massacre left 33 dead in 2007. There is, however, a regressive Republican proposal to curtail the government’s efforts to look for straw buyers in shops along the Mexican border. The Chicago proposals are rooted in proven reforms that Congress should be considering nationally. In 2006, New York City sued 27 out-of-state firearm dealers that were major sources of guns used in city crimes. In a settlement, the dealers agreed to videotape sales and train their staffs to recognize straw buyers, who are in the business of reselling weapons. Follow-up studies showed a major drop in crime-scene guns that came from the shops that had been feeding the underworld pipeline. Washington lawmakers’ disgraceful surrender to the gun lobby was clear last year. The Senate defeated gun safety reforms despite public outrage at the carnage in Newtown, Conn. There usually comes a point after a mass shooting when the word “closure” is invoked and the politicians move on. It looks as if those in Congress can’t embrace closure soon enough, particularly as this year’s electoral cycle heats up. Poster Comment: There are two factors not mentioned in any of these foam at the mouth gun control rants-SSRIs and the black crime wave. It's plain disingenuous to point to street murders in Chicago (which are committed by blacks in almost every instance) while holding up mass shootings (where mind altering drugs that promise to treat unknown physical causes of mental disorders seem to always factor in) as evidence of the lack of sensibility by congress. The hypocrisy of state worshipers in general and antis in particular is blatantly obvious, as is their inability to feel shame. No law making short of as yet-untried summary execution has been able to slow the sales of illegal drugs. In fact prohibition is the reason for the extreme profits that make the risks worthwhile for lowly coyotes, and rich doctors and countless other capital investors who consider drugs a safer investment than the stock market-there's less risk and better ROI. No honest discussion of gun murders can exclude the crime caused by blacks who either have no fear of incarceration (for many it's a badge of honor and results in better nutrition and access to weights in prison) or the correlation between mass/spree killings and BIG PHARMAS' use of the trusting public as the source of riches for stockholders. There is not one proven lab test to isolate and diagnose any of the dozens of new mental illnesses that have popped up in the past 30 years. That means the only way to test drugs is by the behavior of those who take them. Needless to say, SSRIs have failed that test. Dr. John Lott's book, MORE GUNS LESS CRIME makes clear that street thugs don't attack folks in states with shall issue laws the way they "wild" in gun restricted NYC. No, gun permits are only for Don Imus, Joan Rivers and others who ride in limos to political fundraisers in The Big Apple. They're not for lowly proles who are preyed upon in the subways, like Goetz. But, when Bernie Goetz broke the rules and shot the thugs who attempted to intimidate and rob him the NYC establishment went ape! The city wasn't at all concerned when he was beaten within an inch of death in a previous attack. But when white hater Colin Ferguson murdered six people and injured nineteen others on the Long Island Rail Road his lead attorney Bill "The Commie" Kuntsler came up with the defense of "temporary insanity caused by black rage". Any suggestion that a white's spree killing at a synagogue caused by a Viking Berserker rage should result in mitigated punishment, that is, "medical treatment for the disease" would result in howls of outrage. Now, why is that? White people have no rights that Jews and blacks are bound to respect except for the 2nd amendment. It really eats their asses when a nig....I mean, African American (or African Caribbean) is shot in the attempt of a crime against an innocent person, particularly a white person. New York's solution to lawful self defense was the Sullivan Act of 1911. The New York Times called this law a "warning to the Italian community" and both "timely and exemplary".[15] (wiki) But, for La Cosa Nostra it's been business as usual for more than a century since the law that was supposed to rein their members in passed. Unfortunately, unlike the FEDS" phony Assault Weapons and Extended Magazine Ban the Sullivan Act contained no sunset provision. This law alone will guarantee that the city remains a cesspool of official corruption. Remember that after natural disasters where services are lost you are on your own. And, if you can't protect what you have then I may take it from your punk ass mah damn self. (Mee want white wimmen, narcotics, alcohol and sugar) And, my stable of fighting pit bulls will be freed to fend for themselves and it'll be a race to see who eats your women's pussies first. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||